Let me clear that up, I do not mean a single test with 2 sections of RC and two sections of LR if that's what you thought. Rather you can have one of three outcomes (in no particular section order):

LG, LG, LR, RC

LG, LR, LR, RC

LG, LR, RC, RC

So it is beneficial to practice having tests of all types by having two sections of LG in a single test one of which is unscored, having two sections of LR in a single test one of which is unscored, and having two sections of RC in a single test one of which is unscored.

Also, you might need to speak with more people about their LSAT experience that is not a flex test (since flex did not have an unscored section) to get an accurate representation of how often any section type comes up as an unscored section. You will have an equal chance of getting any one section type as your experimental section. If you have an unscored section you will always have a scored version of that same section type (ex. you have an unscored LG you will always have a scored LG as well)

I want to confirm that you mean 2022 and not 2021? Over a year is quite a long time to commit to and maintain a study schedule, not to mention, you could very well be fully prepared in only a few months. Any particular reason you are pushing it this far back?

Reverse splitters are successful all the time. Look at websites like LSData and LawSchoolNumbers and look at schools you are interested in. You can see what LSATs people with your GPA had and whether or not they got in. And as important as your hard stats are, your softs can be a difference maker.

I am of the belief, and have heard this from LSAT tutors, that reading the Economist or similar publications should only be your RC improvement strategy after you have read all of the available RC passages in the preptests. Yes, the articles will be similar, but nothing will prepare you better than reading actual passages. Plus, if the Economist isn't particlarly relevant to you, and you are only reading it to improve your RC, I don't see how that would be preferable to reading and drilling an RC passage instead.

It can be any section type, it is just an experimental like there used to be, so all section types are possible. It would be beneficial to practice having two LG and RC sections in your practicing.

I would say be less worried about time, you cannot practice timing, you can just practice the skills that will make you more efficient. If you are getting 170 BR then that is a great sign of what you are capable of, so you need to see where you ate up most of your time, and drill on similar question types. A minute or two saved here and there really adds up on a 35 minute exam.

> @ said:

> It's so strange to me that everyone seems to breeze over LG... even this post says, "accept that you're just not that good at LR and RC." Is it just assumed that LG is easy for the vast majority of people?!

>

> I've been studying LG for 3 months solid and I'm going -10 still. Any time something I haven't seen before pops up (which feels like every time), I get stuck and feel I can barely complete the game. I'm still out here drilling and fool proofing LG.... ad nauseam.

>

> Meanwhile I go -1 to -3 on RC generally, maybe -3 to -5 on LR...and without really having had to do too much. In fact, I score **_worse_** when I try to implement things I've learned on 7Sage in those sections... so I've just decided to go on intuition mostly. Why am I so backwards from everyone else?!

Are you a philosophy or English major? Have you struggled in math or stem classes? Just a thought since I know people who are great at RC or LR to start with have a background in those first areas. I don't know if you are backwards from "everyone", rather the people who speak up most about struggling with a section happen to be people who are okay with logic games. Additionally I agree with what you're saying in that it is often assumed that LG is perfect or near perfect in many posts, which might be why people do not say that they struggle with it, since they think they are unusual. Just an anecdote, but I feel like it might be helpful for you. I am in an LSAT class with 9 other people, and only 3 of the 10 of us have ever gotten -0 on LG or even close. So that's 70% of this group where LG is still a major challenge for them. You are definitely not alone!

I would not recommend canceling. There is not a guarantee that you won't have any problems the next time you take the LSAT and your score could be far worse than 90th %tile that time. Think of a scenario like this: you cancel this score, then next test you end up with serious food poisoning and can barely take that exam. Since you already cancelled once(which most law schools would not care about) now you will be faced with accepting a possibly much lower score than 90th %ile (which you wont know since score preview is only for your first test), or having two cancels on your record, which AdComms might look at a little more suspiciously and wonder about your judgment.

I really don't think they will be very accurate predictors of your success. Some fundamentals have changed quite a bit in 30 years. If you are completely out of 1-89, when was the first one you took? If it has been more than six months I do not see the problem in taking the first ones you did again. Unless you are getting 180s on every single preptest you retake there is still more to learn from them. Retakes may not be the best predictor but they are better than first time takes of the oldest exams.

If you are taking the LSAT in the next few administrations, there is a good chance that the test your receive will be more similar to the 60s or 70s than the 80s, so don't lose hope. Keep practicing and mastering your mistakes and you will be able to tackle whatever LSAC throws your way.

I think it really depends on where you started on your diagnostic. If you started at a 160 then it could make sense as you are building up fundamentals that you intuitively understood to start. If you are in the mid 140s then I am curious how well you are retaining and applying what you are learning in the curriculum. Are you doing blind review and regular review in your practice? Two months at the start of studying with zero improvement is certainly atypical if you are learning and practicing your weak areas and properly reviewing. Perhaps a tutor will be able to help you at least identify why you are not improving.

The 80s are commonly agreed to be more difficult in LR. I would be prepared to see exams that look more like the 80s than the 60s or 70s.